Criticisms of palleted systems have made certain assumptions about how such
systems would need to be constructed. I can understand how these assumptions may have been
made and do not suggest that they were made purposely, but do want to point out that the
criticisms do not apply to properly constructed palleted systems.

Before doing so, I suggest that we all keep in mind that we do face a very serious
immediate problem with autos. Their use, which is expected to be increasing every year for
years to come, is depleting irreplaceable oil resources at an alarming rate, causing
deaths, injuries and property damage that could be avoided, polluting atmosphere and tying
up traffic. Non-palleted dualmode systems, called "true" dualmode systems by
their supporters, do not appear to be likely to even start helping with this very serious
problem for many years.

Proposed palleted systems include my Autran system (

www.autrancorp.com), the InTranSys system, the MegaRail system and others. In my Autran system, a
pallet (or what I have referred to as a "platform") is supported from below by a
carrier vehicle which moves within a narrow generally tubular guideway. The InTranSys
system includes auto-carrying pallets suspended from carrier vehicles in an elevated
guideway. In the MegaRail system, a pair of enclosed guideway rails are spaced apart a
distance greater than the width of an auto to be carried and provide support for
rubber-tired wheels of a ferry structure which operates as a pallet to support an auto.

Any of these proposed palleted systems might be constructed in a relatively short
time and then start to carry almost all types of existing autos, thereby immediately
dealing with the serious problem of auto use Moreover, there is considerable hope that one
or more might be constructed in the near future since they might operate profitably and
require no taxpayer support. An Autran financial analysis that a 10 mile system which only
carries autos can yield a net income equal to 12.2% of capital costs of $75.7 million.
InTranSys and MegaRail supply little in the way of detailed figures but InTranSys might
also provide a profitable auto-only system and MegaRail claims that no tax funds are
required. I believe that my Autran system has important advantages over both the InTranSys
and MegaRail systems but they do not appear to be germane to this discussion. I will
however discuss a 10 mile Autran system in some detail because I believe it to be a good
example of a properly constructed system to which criticisms that have been made of
palleted systems do not apply.

The 10 mile or 16 km Autran system includes ramps leading to two loading and two
unloading stations in each direction with an average of 12 lanes per station, e.g. 16
lanes in each end station and 8 lanes in each of the two intermediate stations. Each 16
lane station will cover an area of less than about 16000 m2 or 4 acres; each 8 lane
station will cover an area about half as large. [To view a station design that
covers 8 acres, click here]

Obtaining areas for stations in crowed urban areas has been mentioned as a
problem. However, the system is not intended for crowded urban areas which might more
appropriately be served by PRT systems. The system is intended for interconnecting suburbs
and cities and for installation in other places in which obtaining 4 acres of space should
not present a serious problem. Also, each station is elevated and provides a covered space
that might be used for a shopping center or other purposes.

The handling of pallets has been asserted to be a serious problem, under the
assumption that entry and exit facilities must be located in connection with each other,
under the assumption that it must be possible to provide pallet storage areas to and from
which pallets must be moved and under the assumption that storage areas must be provided
for carrier vehicles separate from pallet storage areas.

None of these three assumptions applies to the Autran system in which the entry
and exit facilities are completely separate, there are no pallet storage areas as such and
no separate vehicle storage areas. At all times, each of the 422 carrier vehicles together
with an associated one of the 422 pallets is either in a loading position of a loading
lane, in a queue ahead of loading position, in transit from a loading station to an
unloading station, in transit from an unloading station to a queue of a loading station
(usually the queue of the nearest loading station) or, in certain circumstances, in
transit from the queue of one loading station to a queue of another loading station that
has less than a certain minimum number of vehicles and associated pallets therein.

For example, in a completely inactive condition of the system, 48 carrier vehicles
and associated pallets may be in loading positions, 240 may be queues for such loading
positions 90 may be in queues ahead of the two 16 lane loading stations and 44 may be in
queues ahead of the two 8 lane loading stations. Each 16 lane loading station can load 48
pallets per minute or 1.2 per second. Consider an extreme case in which users start to
arrive at one of the 16 lane loading stations at a rate equal to or greater than 1.2 per
second and continue to do so indefinitely. All of the 16 loading positions and 165
associated queue positions could be emptied in about 150 seconds or 2.5 minutes. However,
after 20 seconds, the number in the queue positions will drop by 24 from 165 to 141. At
that time, vehicles with empty pallets may be programmed to start moving from a nearest
opposite direction loading station 7 miles away, reaching the loading station in about 420
seconds, about 400 seconds or 6.67 minutes after the loading station is emptied. This
delay time is a temporary hiatus that only occurs once in this scenario. Once ended,
pallets can be loaded indefinitely at the 1.2 second rate. While not ideal, a temporary
hiatus of 6.67 minutes that can occur only in the most extreme condition is not considered
to be a serious problem. Patrons frequently wait much longer times in parking garages.

Note also that if delays are occurring while use of the system continues to be
high, it means a very desirable situation in which demand is high and high profits are
being made. It is not a time for throwing up hands in dismay. The thing to do is to
consider raising fares, or adding more pallets and carrier vehicles and/or more loading
and unloading lanes to enjoy still higher profits. Note that less than half of the
available guideway capacity is used in the system being analyzed, that the 422 carrier
vehicles and 422 pallets represent about 8% of total capital costs and that the 96 loading
and unloading lanes represent about 19% of total capital costs. If guideway capacity is
reached and demand is still not being satisfied, the thing to do is to consider building
an additional system that may reduce some of the demand for the existing system.

Details of loading and unloading lanes, pallets/platforms, carrier vehicles and
other components of the Autran system are provided at

www.autrancorp.com, also a detailed
financial analysis and analyses of potential advantages.

In conclusion, palleted systems can not only be viable from a financial
standpoint, but can be immediately effective in dealing with the problems of auto use. I
submit that a thorough study will show that they should be seriously considered for
implementation at the earliest possible time.